Tag Archives: AB 32

Uncategorized

A Crisis Point for AB 32

6 Comments

AB 32, California’s landmark global warming regulation legislation, is now a couple of years old. Mary Nichols and the California Air Resources Board is working to create a reasonable proposal to begin the regulation of greenhouse gases. The system they have been discussing as of late, a modified cap and trade system, is far from perfect, but it is a pretty good start.

Yet, that doesn’t mean that AB 32 is out of the woods. Far from it. As shown from the recent Copenhagen conference, we as global community have a long way to go to agree on any meaningful change. And sometimes, you just have to accept that some will be leaders. California should be such a leader. Of course, being a leader carries risk, but it also presents great opportunity.  As a leader in green tech, we will be poised to start selling this stuff around the world as adoption becomes more widespread.

Recently, Asm. Dan Logue from North-eastern California, decided that he wanted to pretty much repeal AB 32. Logue’s AB 118 would pretty much do that.  You can find a letter opposing the measure sent to Natural Resources Chair Nancy Skinner over the flip.

But, AB 118 was pretty much a campaign tactic from the moment it was inserted into another bill via “gut and amend.”  Nearly identical language now appears in an initiative that will go out for circulation on January 26, sponsored by Tom McClintock and Ted Costa, the founder of the recall Davis campaign. They even have a 1990s-era website.

We cannot assume that such an effort will be easily turned aside. If the campaign can get some right-wing cash in the bank and go out with paid signature gatherers, this could end up being a rather high profile item on the November ballot.

Meanwhile, on the GOP primary campaign trail, Whitman and Poizner are climbing over each other about who hates AB 32 more.  We have to assume that if either is elected, they will immediately suspend AB 32, and we will be back to square one.  So, the opponents of AB 32 really have two cracks at the apple. One in the form of the initiative if it qualifies, the other in the race for governor.

It’s just one more reason to oppose a Whitman candidacy.

UPDATE by Robert: From what I am hearing, the anti-AB 32 initiative is likely to make the November ballot. November 2010 is going to make November 2005 look like the preseason.

January 7, 2010

Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner,

Chair

Assembly Committee on Natural

Resources

1020 N Street, Room 164

Sacramento, CA 95814

RE:  AB 118 (Logue)

– OPPOSE

Dear Chair Skinner and Members

of the Committee:

We write on behalf of the undersigned

public interest organizations, representing a million Californians,

to request your “no” vote on AB 118 by Assemblyman Logue when

it comes before you.  Not only would AB 118 jeopardize public health

and the environment, it would impose economic harm at a time when California

is already struggling to regain our financial footing.  

Campaign tactic –

This bill, gutted and amended just this week, is part of a statewide

campaign to stymie California’s economic recovery and deny workers

the opportunity to benefit from the emerging new energy economy.  

Mr. Logue, along with Rep. Tom McClintock1 and the association

founded by Paul Gann, have filed an initiative nearly identical to AB

118 with the California Attorney General’s office with the intention

of circulating it for signatures to qualify for the November 2010 general

election (see campaign website at www.suspendab32.org).

Disrupts business investment

– Suspension of AB 32, the State’s landmark Global Warming Solutions

Act of 2006, which enjoys broad bipartisan support, would cause economic

distress and create an uncertain business environment for thousands

of California employers who have played by the rules by investing in

clean technology, setting up training programs, retooling equipment

and taking other actions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and stimulate

the economy.

Wastes scarce private and

public dollars – The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the

agency responsible for implementing AB 32, has worked diligently to

meet the deadlines set forth in AB 32, taking care to “evaluate the

total potential costs and total potential economic

…

benefits of the plan

for reducing greenhouse gasses to California’s economy …

using the best available economic models

… and the potential for adverse effects on small businesses

(sections CA Health and Safety Code sections 38560.5(d)(e) (emphasis

added).  Imposing a sporadic “suspension” would upend scarce

private and public investments.  

Reverses economic efficiencies

– While we all know that global economic conditions have taken a

toll on our national and state economies, here in California, we have

an unparalleled record of generating economic profit while controlling

pollution because we have been doing both for the last 35 years.  

State energy policies have saved California households $56 billion from

1972-2006.2

Reduces California’s competitiveness

– California already boasts five of the nation’s top 10 cities

for clean tech investment (San Jose, Berkeley, Pasadena, San Francisco

and San Diego).  In 2008, U.S. California-based companies received

approximately 40 percent of total US clean tech venture investments.3  

Increases costs

– When it comes to climate change, the most expensive thing we can do

is nothing and the second most expensive option is to delay action.

The annual economic impacts of climate-induced damage in California’s

energy sector will range from $2.7 billion in the low warming scenario

to $6.3 billion in the high warming scenario. Overall, $21 billion in

energy assets are at risk.4

California continues to make

history as an economic and environmental innovator.  AB 118 would

impose economic harm, damage public health and threaten California’s

competitive advantage as a first actor in the global race to a clean

energy economy.  We respectfully urge you to vote “no”

on AB 118.  Thank you for your careful consideration of our views.

Sincerely,


Ann

 Notthoff

 

Natural Resources Defense Council

 

 

Pete Price

 

California League of Conservation

 Voters

 

Dan Taylor

 

Audubon California

 

 

Kim Delfino

 

Defenders of Wildlife

 

 

Derek Walker

 

Environmental Defense Fund

 

 

Erin Rogers

 

Union of Concerned Scientists

 

 Bill Magavern

 

Sierra Club California

 

 

Bonnie Holmes-Gen

 

American Lung Association in

 California

 

Matt Vander Sluis

 

Planning and Conservation League

 

 

Ian Kim

 

Ella Baker Center

 

 

Melva Bigelow

 

The Nature Conservancy

Environment

Meg Whitman Responds to Courage Campaign Ad

4 Comments

Note: I work for the Courage Campaign

California’s Sarah Palin (aka Meg Whitman) has taken notice of the Courage Campaign radio ad launched today on radio stations across the state educating the public about Whitman’s position on global warming. She just sent this email out to her list:

Dear Supporter,

A group of liberal activists headed by Howard Dean’s former California campaign chair today launched a negative radio ad attacking Meg Whitman for her common-sense, pro-jobs environmental policies.

Fight back with Meg. She has led the call to put a one-year moratorium on California’s AB 32, which has been estimated to negatively affect one million jobs in California. California cannot afford to hastily implement new environmental regulations that could further delay our economic recovery.

Coincidentally, the attack ad debuted on the same day that a new poll was released showing that Meg is beating the likely Democratic nominee Jerry Brown among independent voters.

National Democrats have already named Meg a top target and now the liberal “Courage Campaign” is taking up the call.

See their attack here.

Can we count on you to help beat these special interest groups and restore California? If you can contribute $15, $25 or $50, please link here to help fight back.

It’s not surprising that Democrats and their special interest groups are already working hard to try to defeat Meg in the Republican primary. They want their chosen candidate, likely Jerry Brown, to face a different, weaker Republican candidate next November. We are not going to let that happen.

Thank you,

Jillian Hasner

Campaign Manager, Meg Whitman 2010

Some quick points. First, it was indeed entirely coincidental that our ad launched the day the PPIC poll came out. We’d been planning this ad for about a week now, but had no clue that PPIC was even doing a poll, certainly not that they were going to release it today. Not that it would have made any difference.

Contrary to Jillian Hasner’s claims, the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office. Jerry Brown is not our “chosen candidate” – we don’t have one, period.

The Courage Campaign’s goal is simply to make the public aware of Whitman’s views on global warming legislation. Specifically, that she believes AB 32 should be suspended.

Looks like we’ve succeeded in that quest. If you want to help get that message aired more broadly on radio stations in California, click here to listen to the ad and donate to expand the buy.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Environment

California’s Sarah Palin: Courage Campaign Ad Hits The Airwaves

4 Comments

Earlier this week I announced that Courage Campaign was going to produce an ad showing how Meg Whitman is California’s Sarah Palin when it comes to global warming legislation. Palin and Whitman both oppose laws that mandate reduction of carbon emissions. Whitman has even said that she will order an indefinite suspension of AB 32 as her very first act as governor.

The Courage Campaign thought Californians should know about that. And our members agreed, putting up the money to get this ad produced and now aired on stations in Los Angeles, Sacramento, and the Silicon Valley.

You can hear the ad by clicking this link. And you can donate to help support and expand the ad buy at the same link. Just a few dollars – $25, $50, $100, whatever you can give – will help spread the word.

We’ve already been getting some earned media attention on this ad. Last night Candy Crowley mentioned it on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° show. And on Tuesday, Carla Marinucci covered it at the SF Chronicle blog.

We’d love it if you could help us expand the buy. Meg Whitman is blanketing the state with her ads. The Courage Campaign doesn’t have those kind of resources, but with your help we can get this ad on more radio stations and hold Whitman accountable.

Over the flip is the transcript of the ad.

Note: I’m the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign

There is something rotten in Denmark.

At the climate change conference in Copenhagen, world leaders — including President Obama and Governor Schwarzenegger — are working on real solutions to global warming.

But Meg Whitman, who wants to be Governor of California, is standing with Sarah Palin and a group of extreme right-wingers in attacking solutions to the climate crisis.

Whitman wants to reverse California’s groundbreaking effort to address global warming — stopping a measure Governor Schwarzenegger went to Copenhagen to defend.

Why do out-of-touch ideologues like Sarah Palin and Meg Whitman oppose common-sense solutions to stop global warming?

Talk about “going rogue.”

Go to CourageCampaign.org to learn why Meg Whitman is California’s Sarah Palin.

We don’t need another extremist “going rogue” on Californians.

Environment

AB 32 Cap on Carbon–Negligible Impact on Small Businesses–New UCS Study

2 Comments

(From our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

First of its kind economic analysis shows significant cuts in global warming pollution will cost small businesses only pennies

Los Angeles County  –  As international climate treaty negotiations begin in Copenhagen amid controversy over economic impacts, a new report shows that the costs for small business operating under California’s landmark climate law (AB 32) can be measured in pennies. Conducted by leading economists and released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) today, the report finds that AB 32 policies will only increase the percent of small business revenue spent on energy by only 0.3 percentage points–from 1.4 to 1.7 percent–in 2020.  In a case study which examines a real world small business–Border Grill restaurant–the report finds AB 32 will cost diners a mere 3 cents extra per $20 meal in 2020.

The analysis, The Economic Impact of AB 32 on California Small Businesses ( www.ucsusa.org/small_business ), a peer-reviewed first-of-its-kind analysis, uses empirical data on the cost characteristics of small businesses to estimate the economic impacts of AB 32 and was commissioned by UCS and conducted by The Brattle Group, an international economic consulting firm.

“Our report finds that the incremental cost impact of AB 32 on the average California small business will be relatively small and definitely manageable,” said Jurgen Weiss of the Brattle Group, and co-author of the report.  “The AB 32 cost impact pales in comparison to the effect of inflation over ten years, and falls well within the range of historic cost variation most small businesses face everyday regardless of climate policy.”

The Brattle Group projected the likely changes in electricity, natural gas, and gasoline prices due to the major AB 32 policies: cap and trade (which puts a price on carbon), a 33% renewable energy standard, increased energy efficiency measures, and a low-carbon fuel standard.

(more…)

Report Highlights

~~ Most small businesses will not be directly regulated under AB 32, therefore AB 32 policies will only impact them indirectly to the extent that these policies cause energy prices (electricity, natural gas, transportation) to change.

~~ The average small business spends less than 1.5 percent of revenues on energy-related costs.  So any increase in the price of energy will have a modest financial impact.

~~ Increases projected in electricity, gas and transportation fuel costs due to AB 32 are lower than recent increases in the same rates caused by factors wholly unrelated to environmental regulations.

~~ Increased costs of intermediate products used by small business (food, supplies and services) that result from higher energy prices will also have only a modest impact on small business.

“Energy efficiency is one of the key ways businesses can save money on energy costs” said Jasmin Ansar, a climate economist with UCS.  “This report does not fully reflect the potential cost savings to small businesses from energy efficiency, so even the modest increases forecast by the study overstate the likely cost of AB 32 to small businesses.”

The report includes a case study of Border Grill, a Los Angeles-based Mexican restaurant, chosen because restaurants are more energy intensive than the average small business and represent the largest share of employment in any small business category – 10 percent of total statewide employment.  After auditing five years of the restaurant’s electricity and gas bills, The Brattle Group developed a 10-year business projection based on historical data, and used this projection, along with macro-economic assessment of change in energy prices, to develop the case study results.

The analysis found that by 2020, the cost of a typical dinner at the Border Grill would rise less than 0.1 percent-or less than three cents for every $20.

“Such a miniscule increase, even if noticed, would not cause our customers any heartburn,” commented Border Grill owners and head chefs Mary Sue Milliken and Susan Feniger. “We’re known as the ‘Too Hot Tamales,’ and we’re worried about a Too Hot Future. Our customers are just as worried as we are, and would be more than willing to pay an extra 3 cents to help avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming.”

According to the report, in 2020, Border Grill will be spending 2% of its revenue on energy.  By investing in a robust set of efficient appliances, vehicles, and other equipment, the restaurant will be able to use even less energy and improve its productivity and competitiveness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This report debunks the myth that some large businesses are spewing, claiming that AB 32–the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act–will hurt small businesses.  

For more info, go to  www.ucsusa.org/small_business

 

Environment

Meg Whitman Speaks With Her Money and Speaks With Her Mouth. Just Don’t Expect the Same Words.

Meg Whitman is a woman of the people. And by that, I mean she’s flexible, always willing to go with the flow.

Take AB 32. Meg Whitman is on record as wanting to suspend the landmark greenhous gas legislation. Well, it turns out that almost all of her foundation gave money to one of the big supporters of the legislation, the Environmental Defense Fund:

The Griffith R. Harsh IV and Margaret C. Whitman Charitable Foundation in 2007 contributed $100,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund, which is now at odds with Whitman over water policy. The foundation also invested $3 million in hedge funds based in the Cayman Islands – a Caribbean tax haven that’s been the subject of political controversy. (SJ Merc 11/6/09)

Meanwhile, the task that AB 32 seeks out to accomplish, reduce carbon levels to 1990 levels by 2020, is not impossible. In fact, San Francisco will achieve that goal by 2012, and is on track to beat that mark considerably. Mayor Newsom says that that the City will likely reduce total carbon emissions by 20 over the ten year period of 2002-2012. Sure, there are differences between SF and the rest of the state, the main one being the relatively stagnant population in our 7×7 mile corner of the Peninsula. However, going green is not nearly as challenging as Whitman makes it out to be.

And heck, she just ask some of her foundation recpients about that. As Robert pointed out, this is your Republican front-runner. W00t!

Uncategorized

Do Not Pay Attention to the Gorilla: The Costs of AB 32

1 Comment

There’s a ton of bickering back and forth, between environmentalists and climate change deniers about the cost of AB 32, our landmark greenhouse gas regulation bill.  They argue about energy cost, and just how much of the state’s GDP, in either direction, will be affected due to proposed regulations.  

Clearly, there will be an impact. Will the increase in green jobs offset the (at least initially) higher cost of energy? How much will the cost of energy increase, and how long will it take to come to some sort of equilibrium. These are all good questions, but for some reason, both sides are ignoring the massive gorilla waiving his arms in the scene, the original reason we started all of this.

Climate change itself has massive costs for California, mitigation is an end unto itself. In this SacBee article today, the costs of climate change itself are pretty much ignored.

California is particularly vulnerable to climate change. We face big risk along our coast of losing homes and property to rising sea levels.We face the danger of desertification of our Central Valley, long the produce market of  America. We are inching close to not only not being able to grow food, but not even being able to provide enough drinking water for the state.

And yet, while we spend years calculating the price of action against climate change, we continue to fail to price in the risk of inaction. When we truly consider the cost of inaction, is there any doubt as to the right course of action?  

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Oh, This Is Going To Be Fun

3 Comments

Last week, Meg Whitman raised some eyebrows when she vowed to suspend implementation of AB 32, California’s landmark global-warming law.  This drew criticisms from the usual suspects, and also happens to be broadly unpopular in a state which supports action on climate change.  It was also a thumb in the eye of the current Governor and practically the only policy on which he can claim a legacy.  So Schwarzenegger came out today and said Whitman’s making an idle threat that she doesn’t mean.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today dismissed a vow by Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman to suspend California’s landmark greenhouse gas law if she’s elected to succeed him next year as “just rhetoric that is going on among the candidates.”

“You will hear all kinds of stories,” Schwarzenegger told an audience at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. “What will happen in reality and what they will do when they go into office is probably a whole different ballgame, and I think she will probably reconsider what she said.

“I’m sure she does not want to be counted as one of those Republicans that will want to move us back to the Stone Age or something like that,” the Republican governor said. “So I would pay no attention to this kind of rhetoric.”

Of course, relics from the Stone Age are the target demographic for a Republican primary, so Whitman has to say what she said.  And she’s not being accused of political pandering by, of all people, Arnold Schwarzenegger.  Which should make for a fun weekend when the two appear together at the GOP convention in Indian Wells starting tomorrow.

Whitman’s more pressing problem is that she has virtually no voting record as a private citizen, apparently having not even registered to vote prior to 2002.  In an amusing moment of brazenness, Steve Poizner called on her to end her campaign as a result.

Poizner’s camp issued a statement in response to the story this morning, attacking the Whitman campaign for “refusing to answer simple questions and deliberately lying to cover up the facts” and calling for the candidate to “step aside” and drop out of the race.

“It’s understandable that Meg Whitman is ashamed of this record. But it’s unacceptable that she continues to run from the record and deceive voters. Though there is no shred of evidence she ever registered as a Republican before 2007, she insists she did, yet she refuses to provide any evidence. Her arrogant answer: ‘Go find it,’ ” Communications Director Jarrod Agen said in a statement. “In the history of America, no one has been elected governor of a state with Meg Whitman’s 25 year history of no-show voting. She is unelectable and has tried to cover her lack of honesty with millions of dollars.”

Hysterical.  By the way, if you think eMeg’s voting record is bad, take a look at iCarly’s.  Quite a team they’ll make on the GOP ticket next year…

Uncategorized

Get Out Your Tea Bags And Pitchforks for CARB

2 Comments

PhotobucketThe Tea Baggers are back! And this time, you best not call them Tea Baggers or else Ted Gaines (R-Placer Co.) will get seriously pissed!

Expecting a high turnout, the Joint Legislative Rules Committee sent out an e-mail yesterday alerting Capitol types to the action.

But the e-mail description didn’t exactly capture the plan for the “party” — it swapped “Tea Party” with “Tea Bag,” a term perhaps better suited for a high school locker room than Capitol halls.

The message drew ire from supporters, including Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, who Twitter messaged Capitol Alert: “It’s a Tea PARTY & it’s important!”

Moments later, Gaines, the committee’s vice chair, tweeted that he had asked the Rules staff to send out a corrected e-mail. The committee quickly complied, recalling the first message and sending out an error-free announcement. (CapAlert 8/28/09)

You know, perhaps if they didn’t use tea bags as the visual (see the photo of them stacking up boxes of tea bags in DC) then this wouldn’t be an issue. But I guess loose leaf tea would be too elitist for these people. And yes, it is very important for people who receive government assistance in federal water projects, in farm subsidies, in other federal and state aid, to let the government how much they truly suck. Or in other words:

Don’t let government run my Medicare!

The tea baggers have another target this time: the California Air Resources Board.  The irony is that many of these people are the very same people of the Central Valley that CARB is working to protect through preserving air quality. But nonetheless, they’ve launched an website of paranoia decrying CARB.

However, CARB is essential for the future of not just the Central Valley, but also in creating green jobs and boosting the economy. The folks at this website and at this tea party are telling their supporters to call the governor and tell them how much they hate CARB.  So, if you have a moment contact governor Schwarzenegger or retweet my myidea4ca [tweet:

Protect AB 32 & CARB in order to build green jobs, clean up our air, and fight climate change. #myidea4CA pls RT http://bit.ly/Kq4BN

2 minutes ago from TwitIQ

Uncategorized

How to handle a warming climate with no water.

I haven’t posted much lately.  Frankly I’ve been very involved in two things.  One is working to build a nationwide Green Party organization to help local communities and candidates deal with water issues.  That may be important in California some day.

The other is more general and that is what most of this post is about.  I have been surprised by what the Obama administration is NOT doing on climate change. I think that I finally have it figured out and it is not good news.  Details on the jump.  

In a week when some attention was given to 350.org’s efforts to protest a coal fired power plant furnishing electricity to the Capitol building, the Governor of NY was meeting with energy folks to set aside the emissions cap / trade requirements for yet another coal fired power plant. That, in itself, makes me wonder just how vulnerable AB 32 is.

The question here is similar to the moral hazard argument about bailouts, only this time the economists have another name for it. Time Inconsistent Policy.  It is just a fancy word for caving in.

I got really upset, because things were to not making sense.  For example, Joseph Romm at Climate Progress is a physicist with experience working in the Dept of Energy.  He seems to have it right. He is also a Sr. Fellow at the Center for American Progress, which seems to be Obama’s favorite think tank.

I was very surprised when I found that Climate Progress, with it’s message that Coal in NEVER Clean, does not represent CAP’s policy.  In fact, it is being set by a couple of lawyers, Ken Berlin and Robert Sussman.  Berlin’s experience is in helping corporations respond to environmental regulation.

I won’t repeat it all since I already blogged it at California Greening.

We are all going to have to watch the AB 32 implementation very, very closely or we will end up like New York.  

Uncategorized

Is AB 32 all we get? Nothing from Boxer.

1 Comment

It seems as if AB 32 is all we are going to have to deal with climate change.  That is perhaps the single biggest failure of our generation.

The connections between global warming and our energy policy are well known and only the stubbornest Republicans hold on to the Gospel according to Senator Inhofe. After Secretary Chu says that energy is “the defining issue of our time” you expect something to happen.  When Barbara Boxer replaced Inhofe as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, most of us who understand ecology greeted the change with a sigh of relief.  Now, even Boxer is saying that we will get no legislation on climate change in 2009.  At least those words were used in her press conference yesterday as reported by Joe Robb at Climate Progress.  

I am not sure that we can afford to wait that long.  The next meeting of the IPPC committee is in December in Copenhagen.  If the US Senate does not have it’s act together by then, the rest of the world is not going to take anything we say very seriously.  I would think that not even Chuck “Nukes are Nice” Devore could do less.  Boxer appears to have no sense of urgency on this.

Maybe she ought to have a long sit down talk with James Hansen. I would probably help them both. I know that Hansen has testified to her committee before. I also know that his public pronouncements have been alarmist, but have consistently under-estimated the rate at which our environment is changing.

At least, Boxer announced her

Principles for Global Warming Legislation at the press conference. While they sound good, there are totally without any substantive implementation, and that leaves us with AB 32.

Both AB 32 and Boxer’s Principles are flawed in that they rely on the magic of the market to provide the mechanism for controlling emissions.  This is the same thinking that gave us derivatives based on mortgage backed securities.  This is the same mechanism that is failing to produce the expected change in the EU because companies cheat and regulators don’t regulate.

This is worth more discussion, which I will do in a series of posts this week.  Let it suffice to say that I am once again disappointed in the fact that Boxer fails to live up to her reputation as a champion of the environment.